The world is turning its back on nuclear power

That’s the key conclusion of the BBC’s poll into public attitudes towards nuclear power released last week. Conducted in 23 countries, the poll found that for only 22% of those people asked, “nuclear power is relatively safe and an important source of electricity, and we should build more nuclear power plants”.

In countries with operational nuclear reactors, the poll’s findings are a damning indictment for the nuclear industry:

In contrast, 71% thought their country "could almost entirely replace coal and nuclear energy within 20 years by becoming highly energy-efficient and focusing on generating energy from the Sun and wind".

Globally, 39% want to continue using existing reactors without building new ones, while 30% would like to shut everything down now.

The UK and the US were the only countries where attitudes didn’t follow this trend – the UK saw support for nuclear rise slightly from 33% in 2005 to 37% in 2011, while support in the US has stayed about the same - down from 2005’s 40% to 39% now.

We would argue that there are several reasons for this. Both countries have long nuclear histories –they first built nuclear reactors back in the 1940s and 1950s in order to develop nuclear weapons. Generating electricity from reactors was an afterthought in an attempt to give the two countries’ nuclear programmes a veneer of respectability. Many in the UK and US clearly still feel there is some kind of prestige attached to this most dangerous of industries. Old habits die hard.

Not even traditionally pro-nuclear France escapes this revolt against nuclear power. In a country with 58 nuclear reactors producing around 75% of its electricity, the poll shows public opposition is up from 66% to 83%. We should also note that in the countries without nuclear power and where support for it is ‘strongest’, none have a majority in favour - Nigeria (41%), Ghana (33%) and Egypt (31%).

As my colleague Jan Beranek, energy team leader at Greenpeace International, reminds us, ‘nuclear power is a relatively tiny industry with huge economic, technical, safety, environmental, and political problems’. So how will the industry greet this poll’s findings? With pledges to address and overcome these problems?

That looks unlikely. What the public needs, according to John Ritch, director-general of the World Nuclear Association, is a ‘better educational effort from industry, from governments and from journalists’. That means more propaganda and greenwashing (Mr. Ritch says nuclear is non-carbon when it is anything but) to try and hide just how discredited nuclear power has become.

The nuclear industry has had the best part of 60 years and billions in public money to try and prove that it is safe, clean, and financially viable as a way of generating electricity. It’s failed miserably. In the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, people are now seeing that clearly.

In the BBC poll, the majority of us said we ‘could almost entirely replace coal and nuclear energy within 20 years by becoming highly energy-efficient and focusing on generating energy from the Sun and wind’. Let’s do it.

"That means more propaganda and greenwashing (Mr. Ritch says nuclear is non-carbon when it is anything but) to try and hide just how discredited ...

"That means more propaganda and greenwashing (Mr. Ritch says nuclear is non-carbon when it is anything but) to try and hide just how discredited nuclear power has become.

Mr. Ritch claims ‘nuclear power will be even safer after Fukushima’. Saying it doesn’t make it so, unfortunately. "

Funny comment. You are not exactly putting forth more evidence than him. "It is anything but". Saying it doesn't make it so, Justin.

Just had to make you aware that of of the 11 articles on RealClearEnergy today, two of them were pro-nukes. One has the ironic headline of "Faith in Nuclear Threatens Renewables". Funny, considering your headline.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Michele
says:

I would rather live next door to a nuclear plant than an oil refinery.
We need more baseload capacity and replacement baseload capacity, and giv...

I would rather live next door to a nuclear plant than an oil refinery.
We need more baseload capacity and replacement baseload capacity, and given those needs, coal and gas fired facilities are not the way to go given their C02 emissions. Sorry, I don't support coal sequestration of C02 for the same reasons I'm not enamored with fracking - both require deepwell injection with attendant earthquake problems. I would rather see the next generation of technology used for the new builds including SMRs, thorium, etc.
rather than rely on old technology that's in place currently.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Kevin123
says:

1st - Your article is based off of a BBC poll that was taken from July to Sept the year of Fukushima. Of course right after 1 of the 3 major accidents...

1st - Your article is based off of a BBC poll that was taken from July to Sept the year of Fukushima. Of course right after 1 of the 3 major accidents that the world nuclear program has ever really had people's thoughts on nuclear will lean more negative. I bet more people hated BP after the oil spill then before and I bet in 3 year their options will start to go back up. Basically the poll is biased and misleading.
2nd - What is this quote "As my colleague Jan Beranek, energy team leader at Greenpeace International, reminds us, ‘nuclear power is a relatively tiny industry with huge economic, technical, safety, environmental, and political problems’."? You are really quoting someone else at Greenpeace in a Greenpeace article about the economic importance of nuclear? The guy clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Nuclear in this country alone makes up about 20% of our electric power. If that is tiny I would love to see what you think it takes to be big. Also, what is the safety, technical and environmental problems? Nuclear is one of the safest industries to work in by far and has been working for 50+ years. More people have died in a single coal mine in 1 year then have ever died in the US from radiation from a nuclear power station (over 50 years). That quote is just an opinion.
Overall nuclear has, and could more, help our country achieve safe, reliable, independent energy.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Consider
says:

Keep in mind that when Greenpeace makes the comments mentioned in these comments, such as "when it is anything but", that they provide a lin...

Keep in mind that when Greenpeace makes the comments mentioned in these comments, such as "when it is anything but", that they provide a link to back up the position.

Nuclear is and never will be safe. There is a reason that it is the creative force of the stars and why life thrives on Earth. From any which way you look at it, nuclear is unfathomably dangerous. It does not take much smarts to understand how radiation works in the environment and in the human body, regardless of the degree of difficulty in tracking its long-term effects.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) The Green Atom
says:

Lots of missing information here. Once again, Greenpeace only uses that information that supports their pre-concieved agenda, and ignores any and all ...

Lots of missing information here. Once again, Greenpeace only uses that information that supports their pre-concieved agenda, and ignores any and all which might place that agenda in question. What about India, China, and Southeast Asia where nuke construction is booming? What about the impending construction starts of four units in the USA, and the completion of two withing the nextr 12 months What about Germany's switching to coal, or is that a global warmimng sore-spot? Wait a minute...it's the Greenpeace axiom..."Let all the evidence be damned. You can trust us."

Post a comment

To post a comment you need to be signed in.

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Beppe
says:

Michele, how about going to live next door to Fukushima 1?
Buying home there is now quite affordable and it is a rather beautiful place: I have been there on holiday a few years ago and it was very pleasant. Also, in Japan, industrial base consumption has been decreasing since quite a few years: the problem is to cover the summer peak consumption caused by air conditioners.
Zamm: talking about the external costs of electricity generation, do you know that TEPCO is basically bankrupt, thanks to nuclear energy? Also, if I recall correctly, electric utilities liability in the US is capped at a ridicolously low level (a fraction of the costs for cleaning after Fukushima, or Chernobyl): in case of an accident the costs will just be externalized to the taxpayer.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) DaitheSci
says:

With their unscientific bias against the solution to climate change - nuclear power - Greenpeace are doing more damage to the environment than *any* i...

With their unscientific bias against the solution to climate change - nuclear power - Greenpeace are doing more damage to the environment than *any* individual company or government. They should be ashamed. It is disgusting.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) zamm
says:

@Beppe: living close to Fukushima right now is probably not more dangerous than living close to a coal plant, or even to a wood-fired one for that mat...

@Beppe: living close to Fukushima right now is probably not more dangerous than living close to a coal plant, or even to a wood-fired one for that matter (1). Somehow, people are made to accept enormous mortality - coal is estimated to kill ca. 1 million people/year worldwide (2) - and yet to be deadly scared of nuclear plants, which are comparatively quite safe. In (2), you'll also see that wind and PV don't fare so well. If you think this is subjective, just look at (3), written by a renowned wind expert who can't really be expected to praise nuclear power!
Nevertheless, PV and wind are still very good and renewable, so should be supported, provided solutions are found for offsetting their variability and improving worker safety. Currently, variability can be taken up by mainly by gas plants, biomass plants and large hydroelectric dams. As gas is a fossil fuel only marginally better than coal, one might think Greenpeace would actively favour biomass and dams. Just read for yourself (1, 4-6)...
One last thing, beware of "reduced baseload demand" - most of this gain is probably not due to efficiency, but simply to shifting the "dirty work" to other countries (China & the like), where it runs mostly on coal!

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Beppe
says:

@Zamm: if you were living in your house close enough to Fukushima Dai-ichi (Fukushima 1) you would probably now be financially ruined, being the value...

@Zamm: if you were living in your house close enough to Fukushima Dai-ichi (Fukushima 1) you would probably now be financially ruined, being the value of your property now down to zero. Even worse if you were growing any produce on your land.
As to baseline demand, the point I wanted to make is that what is dramatically growing in Japan is not baseline demand but seasonal peak demand owed to air conditioning.